The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR registered under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after the complainant, the younger sister of the accused, filed an affidavit stating she no longer wished to pursue the criminal proceedings. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that when parties reconcile and the complainant withdraws allegations, continuing criminal proceedings serves no useful purpose. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings can be quashed in cases of compoundable offences where parties settle their disputes amicably.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Reheeshaa Shashikant Nandanwar, and the second respondent (her younger sister) were involved in a minor quarrel that led to the registration of FIR No. 528 of 2021 at the RCF Police Station, Mumbai. The FIR was registered under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The dispute arose from a difference of opinion between the sisters, which was later resolved through the intervention of their father. Both sisters are trained Taekwondo players, and the petitioner was preparing to represent India in an International Taekwondo Tournament in Norway and Denmark.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 528 of 2021 was registered on the complaint of the second respondent (younger sister) against the petitioner (elder sister)
- The FIR alleged offences under Sections 324 and 506 of the IPC
- The dispute was resolved amicably, and the sisters reconciled
- The petitioner sought to represent India in an International Taekwondo Tournament, but the pending criminal proceedings required court permission for travel
- The second respondent filed an affidavit stating she no longer wished to pursue the criminal proceedings
Procedural History
- FIR Registration: FIR No. 528 of 2021 registered at RCF Police Station, Mumbai
- Charge-Sheet: Charge-sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai (RCC No. 2028/PW/2022)
- Writ Petition: The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings
- Affidavit: The second respondent filed an affidavit dated 30 June 2026 stating her no-objection to quashing the proceedings
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through her advocate, sought quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings on the grounds that:
- The dispute between the sisters was minor and had been resolved amicably
- The second respondent had filed an affidavit stating she no longer wished to pursue the case
- The petitioner was preparing to represent India in an International Taekwondo Tournament, and the pending proceedings were causing obstruction
- Continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose
For the Second Respondent
The second respondent, through her advocate, supported the petitioner's request for quashing the proceedings. She stated:
- The dispute was a petty quarrel that had been resolved
- She had no grievances against the petitioner and did not wish to pursue the criminal case
- Both sisters were focused on their careers and studies, particularly the upcoming International Taekwondo Tournament
- She filed an affidavit of her own free will, without any coercion, consenting to the quashing of the FIR
For the State
The State, represented by the learned APP, did not oppose the quashing of the proceedings. However, the State insisted on imposing costs on the petitioner and the second respondent for unnecessarily involving the police in a familial dispute.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of FIR No. 528 of 2021 registered at RCF Police Station, Mumbai
- Quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing RCC No. 2028/PW/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the FIR and criminal proceedings could be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given that:
- The dispute between the parties was minor and had been resolved amicably
- The complainant (second respondent) had filed an affidavit stating she no longer wished to pursue the case
- The offences alleged were compoundable in nature
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel relied on the following arguments:
- The dispute between the sisters was minor and had been resolved, rendering the continuation of criminal proceedings unnecessary
- The second respondent had filed an affidavit stating her no-objection to quashing the proceedings, indicating reconciliation
- The petitioner's participation in an International Taekwondo Tournament was being obstructed by the pending proceedings, which required court permission for travel
- The Supreme Court, in cases like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, had held that criminal proceedings could be quashed when parties reconcile and the complainant withdraws allegations
For the Second Respondent
The second respondent's counsel supported the petitioner's arguments and submitted:
- The affidavit filed by the second respondent was of her own free will and without any coercion
- The dispute was a petty quarrel that had been resolved, and the sisters were focused on their careers
- The second respondent had no interest in pursuing the criminal proceedings and did not support the prosecution's case
For the State
The State's counsel did not oppose the quashing of the proceedings but insisted on imposing costs on the parties for unnecessarily involving the police in a familial dispute.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the facts and submissions in light of the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat. The Court observed:
- The dispute between the sisters was minor and had been resolved amicably
- The second respondent had filed an affidavit stating she no longer wished to pursue the criminal proceedings and did not support the prosecution's case
- The offences alleged under Sections 324 and 506 of the IPC were compoundable in nature
- Continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, as the bond of sisterhood had been restored
The Court relied on the following key principles from the cited precedents:
"The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and has been settled between the parties. The Court emphasized that the power to quash should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court."
"In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court laid down that when the complainant compound the offence, the Court should consider the nature of the offence, the stage of the proceedings, and the possibility of conviction before deciding whether to quash the proceedings."
"The Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reiterated that the power to quash under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) should be exercised sparingly and with caution, but can be invoked when the dispute is settled and no useful purpose is served by continuing the proceedings."
The Court noted that while the State's insistence on imposing costs was justified, it chose not to impose costs considering the unique circumstances of the case. Both sisters were Taekwondo players, and the petitioner was preparing to represent the country in an International Tournament. Imposing costs might have adversely affected their careers and preparations.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the petition in terms of prayer clause (B). The Court quashed FIR No. 528 of 2021 registered at the RCF Police Station, Mumbai, and the criminal proceedings bearing RCC No. 2028/PW/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai. The Court disposed of Criminal Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2026 with no orders as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reconciliation Can End Criminal Proceedings
This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings can be quashed when parties reconcile and the complainant withdraws allegations, particularly in cases involving compoundable offences. Practitioners should note:
- The Court will consider the nature of the dispute, the stage of proceedings, and the possibility of conviction before quashing
- An affidavit from the complainant stating no-objection to quashing can be a strong ground for quashing proceedings
- The Court may exercise its discretion to quash proceedings even if the State opposes it, provided the dispute is resolved and no public interest is involved
The Role of Affidavits in Quashing Proceedings
- Affidavits filed by the complainant stating no-objection to quashing carry significant weight
- The Court will verify that the affidavit is filed voluntarily and without coercion
- Practitioners should ensure that the affidavit clearly states the complainant's intention to withdraw allegations and not support the prosecution
When Costs May Be Imposed
While the Court chose not to impose costs in this case, practitioners should be aware that:
- The State may insist on imposing costs for unnecessarily involving the police in private disputes
- The Court may impose costs if it finds that the parties acted frivolously or wasted judicial time
- Costs may be waived in cases where imposing them could adversely affect the parties' careers or public interest
